Going by the options proposed by rpmlint, the only possible tag for any development library -- whatever language it's written in -- is "Development/Libraries". At the same time, there are lots of packages using "Development/Libraries/Java"; on my computer, rpm -q -g Development/Libraries/Java | wc -l yields 46 of them.
I also have the same question about "Documentation" vs. "Development/Documentation" for javadoc packages -- rpmlint only accepts the former, but a nontrivial number of packages use the latter.
So what's the official verdict on this?
Thanks,
MEF
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:26:06AM +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
So what's the official verdict on this?
Not official, but the Groups are not used a lot currently, they are superseded by comps. The 'official' list of groups is in /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS but indeed there aren't too many.
rpmbiuld doesn't need a Group: anymore, so maybe in the future they could be completly omitted from spec files.
-- Pat
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:26:06AM +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
So what's the official verdict on this?
Not official, but the Groups are not used a lot currently, they are superseded by comps. The 'official' list of groups is in /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS but indeed there aren't too many.
rpmbiuld doesn't need a Group: anymore, so maybe in the future they could be completly omitted from spec files.
So any Group-related warnings from rpmlint can be safely ignored?
MEF
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:35:22AM +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
So any Group-related warnings from rpmlint can be safely ignored?
This rpmlint warning is touched upon at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#non-s... implying that it should be fixed, but this is also non-official.
I'd say use your best judgement.
-- Pat
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:35 +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:26:06AM +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
So what's the official verdict on this?
Not official, but the Groups are not used a lot currently, they are superseded by comps. The 'official' list of groups is in /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS but indeed there aren't too many.
rpmbiuld doesn't need a Group: anymore, so maybe in the future they could be completly omitted from spec files.
So any Group-related warnings from rpmlint can be safely ignored?
We decided a while back that as soon as rpm didn't require Group anymore, we would stop including it. In the interim, you can put whatever you want in that field.
~spot
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Mary Ellen Foster -
Mary Ellen Foster -
Patrice Dumas -
Tom Callaway